United States v. Shawn Miles , 595 F. App'x 250 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4487
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAWN MILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00205-HEH-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Heather L. Hart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Miles pled guilty to one count of being a felon
in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012) and one count of possession of cocaine base with intent
to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2012). Miles pled not guilty to one count of possessing a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012), and a federal jury
acquitted him of that count. Miles was sentenced to a term of
forty-six months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of
supervised release. Miles contends that the district court
erred in applying a two-level enhancement at sentencing pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2013) for
possessing a firearm when the jury had acquitted him of that
conduct.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we
examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
2
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. We presume on appeal that a sentence within a
properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding
appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines
sentence).
Upon review, we conclude that the court did not
procedurally err or violate Miles’ right to a jury trial by
considering acquitted conduct proved by a preponderance of the
evidence in determining the applicable Guidelines range, within
the proper statutory penalty range. See United States v.
Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 562-63 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the
district court did not err in applying the enhancement on the
facts of this case. See United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850,
852-53 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3